coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
9.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Liverpool.
10.  The applicant is a widower. His wife, whom he had married in 1977, died on 1 February 1997. They had two children, born in 1983 and 1989. Prior to her death the applicant’s wife had worked as a schoolteacher for approximately twenty one years and paid full social security contributions.
11.  On 7 February 2000 the applicant applied to the Benefits Agency for the payment of social security benefits. He applied for benefits equivalent to those which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widowed Mother’s Allowance, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992. He was informed by the Benefits Agency on 2 March 2000 that the benefit was not payable to him because it was available only to widows.
12.  The applicant appealed against this latter decision to a social security appeal tribunal, which dismissed his appeal on 12 May 2000.
13.  The applicant worked as a schoolteacher, except for a period between September 2000 and March 2001 when he was in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance, a means tested benefit. He also received Child Benefit and Lone Parent Benefit. From the day after that on which the claim for benefits was made, that is to say from 8 February 2000, a widow in a similar situation would have received Widowed Mother’s Allowance, payable regardless of income and savings. A widow would also have received a Christmas bonus of 10 pounds sterling (GBP) for the year 2000. Since 10 April 2001, the applicant has been in receipt of Widowed Parent’s Allowance.
4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Baj, Hungary.
5.  On 2 October 1992 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Police Department informed the applicant, the managing director of a limited liability company (“the company”), that a criminal investigation had been opened against him on charges of fraud.
6.  On 6 October 1992 the Police Department requested the Tax Authority’s Komárom-Esztergom County Department to carry out a tax inspection of the company. Subsequently, on 13 October 1992 the criminal investigation against the applicant was suspended pending the outcome of the tax inspection.
7.  On 4 January 1993 the Tax Authority informed the Police Department of its findings. Consequently, on 8 January 1993 the Police Department ordered that the criminal investigation against the applicant be continued.
8.  During the period until 14 December 1993, the Police Department questioned several witnesses on altogether fifteen occasions and interrogated the applicant on 24 August and 16 December 1993. On the latter date he refused to give testimony.
9.  On 17 December 1993 the Police Department appointed an expert graphologist.
10.  On 23 December 1993 the Police Department informed the applicant’s lawyer and the Tata District Public Prosecutor’s Office of the results of the investigation. On 27 December 1993 the Police Department terminated the investigations and transferred the file to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
11.  On 7 February 1994 the Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment.
12.  The applicant’s request of 26 April 1995 to have the investigation re-opened was rejected by the Tata District Court.
13.  The first trial hearing took place on 12 April 1996. On this occasion the District Court heard several witnesses. The applicant refused to testify and stated that he did not commit the crime with which he was charged.
14.  On 15 April 1996 the District Court enquired of a witness who had failed to appear at the hearing of 12 April due to illness as to the expected date of his recovery.
15.  On the applicant’s motion for bias of 10 June 1996, the presiding judge withdrew from the case.
16.  On 30 October 1996 the President of the District Court appointed another judge. On 16 December 1996 the President of the District Court together with two other judges declared bias.
17.  On 29 April 1997 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court appointed the Tatabánya District Court to deal with the case.
18.  On 27 April 1999 the Tatabánya District Court held a hearing and acquitted the applicant.
19.  On the appeal of the Prosecutor’s Office, on 11 and 25 January and 22 February 2000 the Regional Court held hearings.
20.  On 14 March 2000 the Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment, which thereby became final.
8.  The applicant was born in 1970. He is serving a sentence in the Ilava prison.
9.  On 17 October 1995 the applicant was apprehended by the police as he was suspected of having murdered a taxi driver. Criminal proceedings were brought and the applicant was detained on remand in that context.
10.  The main hearing before the Košice Regional Court was held on 24 February 1997. In his final speech the applicant requested, inter alia, that he should be released from detention. On the same day the Košice Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and of the unauthorised carrying of a weapon and sentenced him to twelve and a half years’ imprisonment. Neither the judgment nor the minutes mentioned the applicant’s request for release. In terms of domestic law the applicant continued being detained on remand until the final effect of the judgment leading to his conviction.
11.  On 25 April and on 14 June 1997 the applicant appealed against the Regional Court’s judgment.
12.  In a letter dated 12 May 1997 the applicant informed the presiding judge of the Košice Regional Court that he maintained his request for release from detention on remand of 24 February 1997.
13.  On 2 July 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment convicting the applicant became final on the same day.
14.  On 29 October 1997 and on 25 March 1998 respectively the president of the Košice Regional Court and the Ministry of Justice admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that no decision had been taken on his application for release lodged at the hearing before the Regional Court on 24 February 1997.
6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Florence.
7.  T.P.N. was the owner of a flat in Florence, which she had let to M.G.
8.  In a registered letter of 20 June 1987, the owner informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
9.  In a writ served on the tenant on 21 January 1988, the owner reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
10.  By a decision of 10 February 1988, which was made enforceable on 22 February 1988, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 10 February 1989.
11.  On 19 May 1989, the owner served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
12.  On 15 June 1989, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 July 1989.
13.  On 20 November 1989, the applicant became the owner of the flat.
14.  Between 13 July 1989 and 1 September 2000, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
15.  On 11 February 1991, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.
16.  On 1 September 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
5.  The applicant was born in 1926 and lived in Florence.
6.  He was the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to A.T.
7.  In a registered letter of 14 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.
8.  In a writ served on the tenant on 22 March 1984, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 30 April 1984, which was made enforceable on 9 June 1984, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1985.
10.  On 19 September 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.
11.  On 23 October 1987, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 December 1987.
12.  Between 15 December 1987 and 15 March 1999, the bailiff made thirty-two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 10 September 1999.
14.  On 30 January 2001, the applicant reached a friendly agreement with the tenant who was supposed to leave the premises on 1 February 2002.
15.  On 31 April 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.
6.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Mödling (Austria).
7.  As from 1977 the applicant was the director of the Central Mint Office (Hauptmünzamt). On 10 May 1988 the Federal Ministry of Finance (Bundesministerium für Finanzen) dismissed the applicant without notice (fristlose Entlassung) and ordered him to return to his former working place at the Ministry of Finance as a civil servant.
8.  On 21 June 1988 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of Finance and the Münze Austria AG, the legal successor of the Central Mint Office which had to enter as a party into all work contracts of the latter.
9.  On 3 September 1992 the Vienna Labour and Social Court (Arbeits- und Sozialgericht) partly allowed the applicant's claim. On 28 May 1993 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the applicant's appeal and allowed the defendants' appeal. On 10 December 1993 the Supreme Court allowed the applicant's further appeal. It considered that the applicant qualified as a favoured disabled person (begünstigter Behinderter) since 1 February 1988. Such employees may not be dismissed without the consent of the Federal Social Office. However, the Ministry of Finance had not requested such an authorisation.
10.  Subsequently, the applicant instituted civil proceedings, claiming the remuneration resulting from these valid work contracts. However, these proceedings were suspended and finally not reopened due to the following administrative proceedings.
11.  On 30 April 1994 the Ministry of Finance filed an application with the Disabled Persons Committee at the Federal Social Office (Behindertenausschuss beim Bundessozialamt) to grant a retroactive authorisation in respect of the applicant's dismissal as provided under the Disabled Persons Employment Act.
12.  On 12 December 1994 the Federal Social Office, after having held a hearing on 31 May 1994, dismissed the Ministry of Finance's application. On 20 April 1995 the Appeals Commission at the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (Berufungskommission beim Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales) allowed the appeal and granted the retroactive authorisation for the applicant's dismissal. On 23 September 1996 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the applicant's complaint of 20 July 1995 for lack of prospects of success. On 21 September 1999 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. It considered that the authorisation for the applicant's dismissal given by the Appeals Commission was lawful.
9.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in London.
10.  The relevant facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The events described below took place between January 1998 and February 1999.
11.  The applicant contacted the police after he was attacked by a young man with whom he had had homosexual relations. He was arrested for allegedly engaging in buggery with a young man aged 16 years of age contrary to section 12(1) and schedule 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The applicant underwent a medical examination with his consent during which samples were taken and his residence was searched by police. He was released on police bail the following day and was subsequently formally charged.
12.  The applicant attended before the Magistrates' Court on four occasions and each time he was bailed to re-appear. During this period, the applicant wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and other government officials stating that the criminal proceedings against him violated his human rights, citing the case of Sutherland v. the United Kingdom (no. 25186/94, Commission's report of 1 July 1997, unpublished).
13.  The applicant subsequently requested leave to apply for judicial review of the CPS decision to prosecute him but this application was refused. His renewed application was later rejected by the High Court. Following a hearing at the Magistrates' Court, the applicant was committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court. He appeared before the Central Criminal Court for a plea and directions hearing and for a hearing on various matters including his request for the trial to be postponed in order to allow him more time to prepare.
 14.  The CPS later advised the applicant by letter that it had decided not to proceed with the case against him and that he should accordingly attend the Central Criminal Court on a particular date. On that date he was formally acquitted by that court. The trial judge asked the applicant if he would like to make a claim for costs but, following a brief discussion, the applicant decided not to make any claim on the grounds that, in his view, the CPS were “quibbling” over the amount to be awarded.
4.  The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Bydgoszcz, Poland.
5.  On 19 July 1966 the applicant and his wife obtained a divorce decree. On 5 November 1975 the applicant's ex-wife filed with the Bydgoszcz District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition for division of the matrimonial property. On 16 October 1978 the Bydgoszcz District Court gave a decision. Both parties appealed. On 30 May 1979 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case. In 1982 the applicant's ex-wife donated her share in the disputed property to A.H. and E.H., who became parties to the proceedings.
6.  On 2 December 1990 the applicant sent a letter to the Minister of Justice, complaining about the slow progress of the proceedings. On 15 February 1991, in reply to his complaints, the President of the Bydgoszcz Regional Court acknowledged that the proceedings were indeed lengthy. Prior to 1 May 1993, the Bydgoszcz District Court held a number of hearings and obtained several expert reports.
7.  On 19 July 1993 the District Court held a hearing. On 5 January 1994 the applicant challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge.
8.  On 29 May 1995 the District Court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. On 23 October 1995 the expert informed the court that he had been unable to prepare a report due to the applicant's conduct.
9.  On 6 September and 23 October 1995 the trial court held inspections of the site.
10.  On 2 October 1996 the Bydgoszcz District Court gave a decision. The court granted ownership of the entire property (plot of land and the house) to A.H. and E.H. The court also ordered them to pay off the applicant's share in the estate.
11.  On 5 June 1997, on the applicant's appeal, the Bydgoszcz Regional Court partly amended the first-instance decision. On 19 September 1997 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal.
12.  On 4 February 1998 A.H. and E.H. sold their share in the property to a certain J.S. On 28 April 1999 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) quashed the decision of 5 June 1997 and remitted the case to the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
13.  On 27 January 2000 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court gave a decision and remitted the case to the District Court.
14.  On 20 December 2000 the Bydgoszcz District Court issued an interim order allowing the applicant to install central heating in his part of the house. On 25 June 2001, upon an appeal by J.S., the Bydgoszcz Regional Court quashed this decision.
15.  On 21 January 2001 the District Court held a hearing.
16.  The proceedings are pending before the Bydgoszcz District Court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Nottingham, England.
7.  In 1998 the applicant's local council received complaints about the behaviour of the applicant, and that of her children, from her neighbours, the Davies'.
8.  Following the institution of proceedings against the applicant by the local council for the possession of her home in July 1999 as a result of an alleged assault by her upon Mrs Davies, the applicant agreed to be bound by an undertaking, until 17 April 2000, that she would not harass or cause a nuisance to anyone in her road.
9.  The Davies' made further allegations about the behaviour of the applicant and her family between 9 November 1999 and 18 April 2000, including assertions that eggs had been thrown at their property, excrement had been placed on the door handle of their front door and bleach had been poured into their letterbox.
10.  On 18 April 2000 the local council attached a hidden video camera to the wall to the right of the Davies' front door, which pointed towards the front door of the applicant's home and monitored the space directly in front of her home.
11.  In May 2000 the applicant first became aware of the presence, and location, of the video camera. The local council issued further proceedings against the applicant seeking possession of her home on the grounds, inter alia, that she had broken an obligation of her tenancy and/or was causing a nuisance. The applicant either denied or did not admit the incidents alleged against her.
12.  On 31 May 2000 the applicant gave an undertaking to the court promising not to assault or cause a nuisance to the Davies', and neither to trespass upon their land, nor to permit her children and/or visitors to her home to do so. As a result of the applicant complying with that undertaking, the possession proceedings were adjourned generally in or after September 2000. No possession of the applicant's home ever, in fact, took place.
13.  By letter of 4 September 2000 the local council confirmed to the applicant that no further covert surveillance would be undertaken on her property and that the tapes of the surveillance undertaken to date had already been destroyed and disposed of. No surveillance took place thereafter.
14.  No video surveillance was ever directed at the Davies' home.
8.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Ankara.
9.  The applicant, a journalist, published an article entitled “State of Emergency and Provide Comfort Forces” (“OHAL ve Çekiç Güç”) in the 30 June 1995 issue of “Evrensel” (“Universal”), a daily newspaper published in Turkey.
10.  On 30 June 1995, at the request of the public prosecutor, a single judge of the Istanbul State Security Court made an interim order for the seizure of copies of the issue of Evrensel newspaper published on 30 June 1995.
11.  On 3 July 1995 the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant and the editor-in-chief of the newspaper with incitement to hatred and hostility by making distinctions on the basis of race and region under Article 312 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code.
12.  On 23 September 1995 the applicant was released from prison after having served his sentence of one year and eight months’ imprisonment, stemming from another conviction by the Ankara State Security Court in connection with an earlier charge of incitement to hatred.
13.  On 17 November 1995 the Ankara State Security Court commuted the applicant’s prison sentence to a fine in accordance with Law no. 4126, which came into force on 27 October 1995. The sentence was subsequently suspended.
14.  On 15 May 1996 the Istanbul State Security Court, composed of three judges including a military judge, found the applicant guilty as charged. The court sentenced the applicant to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 Turkish liras. The applicant was sentenced in absentia.
15.  On 18 November 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court stating that the lower court should not have convicted the applicant without hearing his defence.
16.  The case was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court.
17.  On 29 December 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court convicted the applicant once again under Article 312 §§ 2 and 3 of the Criminal Code. It ruled that the impugned article, taken as a whole, amounted to incitement to hatred and hostility on the basis of distinctions between races and regions. The court sentenced the applicant under Article 312 §§ 2 and 3 of Criminal Code to one year and eight months’ imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 Turkish liras.
18.  On 12 January 1998 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation.
19.  On 16 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the Istanbul State Security Court’s judgment of 29 December 1997.
20.  On 17 August 1998 the applicant lodged a petition with the Istanbul State Security Court. He requested that the period that he had been imprisoned due to his conviction by the Ankara State Security Court be deducted from the prison sentence ordered by the Istanbul State Security Court.
21.  On 11 September 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court accepted the applicant’s request and, therefore, the applicant was not imprisoned.